1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Note: This thread is intended to be an IT-free zone

What this is about:
I'm making this thread to present my hypothesis that ethical considerations play a smaller role in people's final choice than they claim, and to ask people why they don't choose Control.

The observation:
The ethics of the final choice have been discussed to death. Many people, if not most, claim that the morality of the final choice is a big, if not the deciding factor in their choice. People claim they make a certain decision because it's "less wrong than the others".

Now consider Control. You are not sacrificing a whole domain of life like in Destroy. You are not changing the biochemistry of all life in the galaxy. In fact, you are not killing or hurting anyone. You only keep the Reapers enslaved, which according to common perception is justifiable. It's even questionable if you actually killed yourself. From no rational ethical viewpoint can Control considered to be morally wrong. Even if you're firmly convinced that "power corrupts" - which isn't a moral argument rather than an ideological one - the fact that you have agency over the future in Control (see below) will let you avoid any projected negative consequences with no side effect.
Yet, according to various polls, Control is the least popular choice, even less popular than Synthesis.

Another curious aspect is that Control is the only ending where your agency can be said to extend into the future. For that reason, people have used Control to create headcanons resulting in scenarios similar to the other endings while avoiding their ethical downsides. People have said "Continuity of identity or not, if this Control Entity is informed by my Shepard's values, then it will send the Reapers into a black hole after the repairs are done / will encourage a Synthesis future without forcing it" and similar things. Players want agency, right? Control gives it to them. Like no other option of the final choice, if you, the player, say what happens in your ME universe after the ending, others will be hard-pressed to find arguments against it because nobody else has control of your Shepard's values which informed the Control Entity. 
Yet Control is the least popular choice.

I find that baffling. It makes no sense. Clearly, if people avoid Control, tangible ethical downsides can't be the reason, because it doesn't have any. Lack of agency also can't be the reason, since while the amount of agency you actually have may be doubtful, there can be no doubt at all that you have more impact on the future than in the other endings.

The question:
In order to shed some light on the matter, I'm asking everyone who avoids Control: why do you avoid Control? Why do you avoid a decision which is clearly ethically superior to the others? Also, if you have an opinion or a hypothesis on why more people don't choose Control, please share it!

Of course, people can ask me that, since my main Shepard also doesn't choose Control but Synthesis. I'll give an answer eventually, but I'd like to read others' first. For now, only this: ethical consideration do play a smaller role in my decisions than other considerations. However, I have never claimed otherwise.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 décembre 2012 - 10:04 .

[Uncle Jo]

I think the whole negative foreshadowing of the control option, the classical "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and the fact that you're somehow keeping a status quo (Reapers still around and Shepalyst) are the answer to your question.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 19 décembre 2012 - 10:17 .

[Noblewolf]

did you even hear how evil and pissed off reaper-shep sounded? that just has bad news written all over it....

Modifié par Noblewolf, 19 décembre 2012 - 10:26 .

[Ieldra]

Finn the Jakey wrote...
Because it's exactly what the main antagonist wanted to do throughout the entire game.

Why does that matter? More to the point: why does that matter in the face of the absence of any tangible ethical downside?

Noblewolf wrote...
did you even hear how evil and pissed off reaper-shep sounded? that just has bad news written all over it....

I didn't hear anything "evil and pissed-off" in the Paragon version. Quite the opposite, in fact. "I will ensure that all have a say in their future" - how exactly is that bad?

@Uncle Jo:
Maybe, but it is odd that this has such a big influence in a decision you really should think about somewhat before you make it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 décembre 2012 - 10:37 .

[grey_wind]

I actually like the concept of Control and the idea behind it.

I just hate how ******-poorly it's handled throughout the game.

[geceka]

Ieldra2 wrote...

From no rational ethical viewpoint can Control considered to be morally wrong.

This is not universally true: The success of a "Control" ending depends heavily on Shepard's ability to actually use the Reapers in a way that ensures the continued thriving of the galaxy. Considering that the catalyst's purpose of protecting organics from the annihilation by self-evolving synthetics cannot easily be dismissed, Shepard knows of at least one fundamental conflict they will have to manage in the future in order to be a proper guardian for the galaxy. Even more so, Shepard has personally experienced many other conflicts in which he/she – as the new catalyst – might be obliged to intervene. As an example, would a Shepard catalyst condone or prevent the extinction of a race like the Rachni? How far would he be willing to go in such an intervention? What about another Krogan uprising (under Wreav or whomever).

Thus, being the catalyst involves a lot of moral responsibilities. I can see how someone might think it being "morally wrong" for their Shepard to "control", if they don't think they are up to the task, akin to the notion that picking up any responsibility you can't fulfull is ethically wrong (e.g. pretending to be a, say, doctor when you know nothing about medicine).

Even if you're firmly convinced that "power corrupts" - which isn't a moral argument rather than an ideological one

Also, such an argument doesn't really apply, because we know nothing about the plane of existence Shepard is elevated to.

the fact that you have agency over the future in Control (see below) will let you avoid any projected negative consequences with no side effect.

See my first comment. This postulates that Shepard is actually ethically and morally "advanced" enough to prevent such consequences. With the powers of the catalyst, every mistake can potentially be disastrous.

Another curious aspect is that Control is the only ending where your agency can be said to extend into the future.

This is true, even though said agency will be heavily colored by the advanced intellectual and cognitive capabilities of being the catalyst. Thus, the quality of agency your Shepard will have over the galaxy cannot be compared at all to where you are departing from, so ultimately, "being in power" now becomes meaningless from a player/recipient perspective, as you simply cannot imagine yourself in the shoes of a catalysed Shepard anymore.

I find that baffling. It makes no sense. Clearly, if people avoid Control, tangible ethical downsides can't be the reason

You need to factor in that "Control" is presented as the Illusive Man's choice: Associating an opinion with a controversial avatar has been a rhetoric (and polemic) trick for thousands of years, first being documented in ancient Greek tomes about the art of rhetorics. Also compare "Godwin's law".

Thus, if people do not put that much thought in their choice by themselves, but rather go along with how the game presents the choice, I'd postulate that "Control" appears less desirable than, say, "Destroy", which is associated with Anderson.

there can be no doubt at all that you have more impact on the future than in the other endings.

Again, universal responsibility isn't necessarily desirable for everyone, if they do not feel up for the task. Remember that throughout the game, the doubts if "we are ready" to control the Reapers ("But what if you cannot control them!") are Shepard's main line of argumentation against TIM. "Not be able to control them" doesn't necessarily mean the physical ability to exert control over them, but can also refer to the ethical and intellectual ability to use them in a meaningful, appropriate way.

Modifié par geceka, 19 décembre 2012 - 10:42 .

[JasonShepard]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Because it's exactly what the main antagonist wanted to do throughout the entire game.

Indeed, and until Sanctuary, my Shepard genuinely believed that TIM's aspirations were unachievable. Then suddenly he had evidence to the contrary. Picking your dialogue choices carefully after that can allow you to roleplay a Shepard who is open to Control as a solution, it just isn't his prefered one until he finds out about the consequences of Destroy.
And it definitely wouldn't be his prefered one with TIM in charge. Albeit he still considers that marginally better than the current situation of Reaper harvests...

PS Good thread Ieldra2  I'd been wondering along these lines myself for quite a while...

Modifié par JasonShepard, 19 décembre 2012 - 10:50 .

[Noblewolf]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...
Because it's exactly what the main antagonist wanted to do throughout the entire game.

Why does that matter? More to the point: why does that matter in the face of the absence of any tangible ethical downside?

Noblewolf wrote...
did you even hear how evil and pissed off reaper-shep sounded? that just has bad news written all over it....

I didn't hear anything "evil and pissed-off" in the Paragon version. Quite the opposite, in fact. "I will ensure that all have a say in their future" - how exactly is that bad?

@Uncle Jo:
Maybe, but it is odd that this has such a big influence in a decision you really should think about somewhat before you make it.

I know but just way he says it sends shivers down my spine...also the main reason i didnt pick it was reaper-shep came from a humen a humen with emotions and this one humen/reaper hybrid more or less is incontrol of the most powerful force in the galaxy so what happends when reapershep gets angry......

[Ieldra]

Noblewolf wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...
Because it's exactly what the main antagonist wanted to do throughout the entire game.

Why does that matter? More to the point: why does that matter in the face of the absence of any tangible ethical downside?

Noblewolf wrote...
did you even hear how evil and pissed off reaper-shep sounded? that just has bad news written all over it....

I didn't hear anything "evil and pissed-off" in the Paragon version. Quite the opposite, in fact. "I will ensure that all have a say in their future" - how exactly is that bad?

@Uncle Jo:
Maybe, but it is odd that this has such a big influence in a decision you really should think about somewhat before you make it.

I know but just way he says it sends shivers down my spine...also the main reason i didnt pick it was reaper-shep came from a humen a humen with emotions and this one humen/reaper hybrid more or less is incontrol of the most powerful force in the galaxy so what happends when reapershep gets angry......

That's interesting. Would I be correct in paraphrasing this as "My Shepard is a man who wouldn't trust himself with that kind of power, and that distrust is stronger than my ethical concerns about the ending I chose in the end"?

Edit:
It wasn't said explicitly, but I think it was implied that the Control Entity would have less immediacy of emotion than the Shepard it was based on.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 décembre 2012 - 10:53 .

[Eterna]

Control is my canon.  I think people overlook it because you are told pretty much from the get go that it is the wrong method.

I am also of the firm belief that power cannot corrupt an AI. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 19 décembre 2012 - 11:13 .

[Kataphrut94]

I reckon Control is one of those choices that no one ever considers on their first runthrough, but looks a lot better once you examine everything in hindsight. When you first get to the Catalyst chamber, you've just had that big debate with the Illusive Man about why Control is a terrible idea, so it kind of gets ignored in favour of the long-favoured but now with a sudden obvious catch to it Destroy, and the newly revealed, seemingly benign yet also ethically questionable Synthesis. In discussions with people who have finished the game for the first time talking about the choices they made, almost everyone picks either Destroy or Synthesis and scoffs at the very idea of Control.

It's only when you examine it in hindsight (and after you've embarassed yourself posting a 1000-word rant on the nearest blog or forum about how much you hate having to sacrifice all synthetics and how Bioware are a bunch of big meanie-pants) that you realise Control contains none of the hidden catches or implied apocalypses of the other two choices and might actually make things better in the aftermath of a horrible war.

I personally find it in pretty poor taste that people believe the Destroy option which commits outright genocide is somehow more moral than the benign dictatorship of Control and what is effectively tricking the enemy into pacifism with Synthesis. Sure they may all have their ups and downs, but at the end of the day Control is the only choice where the organics are still organic and the synthetics are not dead.

[Wulfram]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Why does that matter? More to the point: why does that matter in the face of the absence of any tangible ethical downside?

Because this is a story, and the way the narrative is framed, Control seems like the wrong choice.  It feels like Frodo choosing to claim the ring for his own.

Control is presented throughout the game as an act of hubris, that our story telling culture says must inevitably be followed by nemesis.  So people assume it must fail in some way - either Shepard will be unable to control the Reapers, or they will be corrupted by power into a tyrant.

[Eterna]

Wulfram wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Why does that matter? More to the point: why does that matter in the face of the absence of any tangible ethical downside?

Because this is a story, and the way the narrative is framed, Control seems like the wrong choice.  It feels like Frodo choosing to claim the ring for his own.

Control is presented throughout the game as an act of hubris, that our story telling culture says must inevitably be followed by nemesis.  So people assume it must fail in some way - either Shepard will be unable to control the Reapers, or they will be corrupted by power into a tyrant.

Explain too me how power can corrupt an artificial intelligence? 

[umadcommander]

[Thegnat]

While I will admit my subsequent playthroughs have chosen destroy for purely meta reasons (shallow, I suppose), my initial gut reaction was destroy as well. 

Initially, there was my natural distrust that the Catalyst's explanation of the wonky handlebar apparatus would work out as he assured. I had that same practical question regarding shooting the tube but I figured shooting the tube would be best as an action because if it was all just some lie then at least I'd still be alive, ready to continue my mission.

The ethical dilemma did weigh on me though. Control seemed like it only killed Shep's body, the EC wasn't around so I assumed I'd just use the Reapers for good. In the end, though, I did not choose Control simply because I felt leaving the Reapers around in any form was too much of a risk for me to consider. I chose to destroy them.

Sure, the ethical problems of destroying the Geth and EDI as collateral after all they had achieved was weighing on my mind; however, I always figured in the end Shepard was going to have to make a very difficult decision in which he may have to sacrifice his own moral and ethical guidelines in order to save life itself.

Certainly, future scholars, politicians and ethicists would debate the moral justification of my actions. In the end, I chose the ending that destroyed the reapers and gave future generations the ability to hammer out all the fine details like "what is life?"

I know others won't see eye to eye with my decision and that's fine. In such a desperate situation, I doubt I would myself put ethics before survival.  Maybe I'm being dumb.

Modifié par Thegnat, 19 décembre 2012 - 11:19 .

[Eterna]

umadcommander wrote...

That picture never made sense too me. The Illusive man killing himself becaise of Shepard has nothing to do with the ending. 

[umadcommander]

Eterna5 wrote...

umadcommander wrote...

That picture never made sense too me. The Illusive man killing himself becaise of Shepard has nothing to do with the ending. 

the illusive man is they guy saying control is a good idea

[Eterna]

umadcommander wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

umadcommander wrote...

That picture never made sense too me. The Illusive man killing himself becaise of Shepard has nothing to do with the ending. 

the illusive man is they guy saying control is a good idea

And? He kills himself? So what?

How does the illusive man commiting suicide due to Shepards influence paint a negative picture of Control?

Modifié par Eterna5, 19 décembre 2012 - 11:26 .

[Ieldra]

[quote]geceka wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...

From no rational ethical viewpoint can Control considered to be morally wrong.
[/quote]

This is not universally true: The success of a "Control" ending depends heavily on Shepard's ability to actually use the Reapers in a way that ensures the continued thriving of the galaxy. Considering that the catalyst's purpose of protecting organics from the annihilation by self-evolving synthetics cannot easily be dismissed, Shepard knows of at least one fundamental conflict they will have to manage in the future in order to be a proper guardian for the galaxy. Even more so, Shepard has personally experienced many other conflicts in which he/she – as the new catalyst – might be obliged to intervene. As an example, would a Shepard catalyst condone or prevent the extinction of a race like the Rachni? How far would he be willing to go in such an intervention? What about another Krogan uprising (under Wreav or whomever).

Thus, being the catalyst involves a lot of moral responsibilities. I can see how someone might think it being "morally wrong" for their Shepard to "control", if they don't think they are up to the task, akin to the notion that picking up any responsibility you can't fulfull is ethically wrong (e.g. pretending to be a, say, doctor when you know nothing about medicine).[/quote]
So we have a second reason: "My Shepard doesn't think he can handle the responsibility, and that outweighs ethical concerns about the choice I made in the end".

However, this is easily countered: even if you believe you can't handle that responsibility, you can still send the Reapers into a black hole and essentially get the result of Destroy minus the death of the synthesics and with the Citadel remaining intact. 

[quote][quote]
the fact that you have agency over the future in Control (see below) will let you avoid any projected negative consequences with no side effect.
[/quote]
See my first comment. This postulates that Shepard is actually ethically and morally "advanced" enough to prevent such consequences. With the powers of the catalyst, every mistake can potentially be disastrous.
[quote]
See my comment above

[quote][quote]Another curious aspect is that Control is the only ending where your agency can be said to extend into the future.
[/quote]
This is true, even though said agency will be heavily colored by the advanced intellectual and cognitive capabilities of being the catalyst. Thus, the quality of agency your Shepard will have over the galaxy cannot be compared at all to where you are departing from, so ultimately, "being in power" now becomes meaningless from a player/recipient perspective, as you simply cannot imagine yourself in the shoes of a catalysed Shepard anymore.[/quote]
I can make a few reasonable speculations though.

[quote]
You need to factor in that "Control" is presented as the Illusive Man's choice: Associating an opinion with a controversial avatar has been a rhetoric (and polemic) trick for thousands of years, first being documented in ancient Greek tomes about the art of rhetorics. Also compare "Godwin's law".

Thus, if people do not put that much thought in their choice by themselves, but rather go along with how the game presents the choice, I'd postulate that "Control" appears less desirable than, say, "Destroy", which is associated with Anderson.[/quote]
Yeah, that reason has been given. What I find baffling is that this association fallacy is so strong that it can outweigh considerable ethical concerns like wiping out a whole domain of life. Basically, people are ready to commit genocide because the choice which would avoid it is associated with an antagonist, in spite of the absence of any tangible evil in the outcome itself.

[geceka]

umadcommander wrote...

the illusive man is they guy saying control is a good idea

The point being? Are you seriously implying that an idea is immediately invalidated if you can present any (indoctrinated, even) nutjob promoting it as well?

[umadcommander]

geceka wrote...

umadcommander wrote...

the illusive man is they guy saying control is a good idea

The point being? Are you seriously implying that an idea is immediately invalidated if you can present any (indoctrinated, even) nutjob promoting it as well?

no it just gives me a bad feeling about it in general, im not saying control is wrong just that im not sure enough about it to pick it myself

[AntiChri5]

Control is the death of free will.

The Reapers are an unstoppable force, leaving the galaxy no option but to accede to the demands of the Shepard AI. This is only a good thing so long as you think Shepard is always right about everything and has the perspective necessary to rule over dozens of different species.

In Control, Shepards vision of the future and what the galaxy should be are paramount, with no equals to offer Shepard differing perspectives.

Thats before we even look at indoctrination. Dead reapers still indoctrinate, so it is more a part of what they are then something they can turn off and on at will. Dispatch a Reaper to deal with a pirate fleet, accidentally enslave the colony you were trying to defend. Huzzah for control.

Shepard does not even begin to have the qualifications to make decisions that the life of every human, asari, turian, salarian, krogan, batarian, quarian, drell, elcor, hanar and volus will revolve around.

Having one omnipotent god with final say on everything for the rest of time is something i am just not comfortable with.

No gods, no masters.